Mumbai Court February 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jagdish Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appeal is against the revisional order confirming the penalties on the appellant under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Refined Cotton Oil inputs i.e. raw material Cotton Waste Oil is used and after procession on inputs finished goods refined cotton oil is coming into existence which is sold in market. The inputs were received from various customers by the appellant for refining and after receipt of the said inputs the same are to be processed are accounted in the Daily stock Account Register and cleared from the factory on payment of duty as applicable rates. During the course of investigation, the preventive officers concluding the activity of refining as job work and asked the appellant to pay service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant to get rid of litigation deposited the Service Tax as demanded by the department...
M/S Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These appeals are filed against the impugned order, wherein refund claim with regard to the excess CENVAT credit lying in their Cenvat account was rejected by both the lower authorities. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an application for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 amounting to Rs.4,66,090/-. The appellants were issued a show-cause notice on the following grounds: - (i) Some of the invoices issued by M/s TQ3 Travel Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. do not have service tax registration on it. (ii) The registration number mentioned on the invoices issued by M/s Routes Car Rentals (I) Pvt. Ltd. do not match with the registration number given in the details submitted along with the claim. (iii) As per invoices of M/s Routes Car Rentals (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Indiatravel Pvt. Ltd., M/s Parvatham Cabs, the cab services have been used outside Mumbai and the use of these services as input ser...
M/S Pushpak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of confiscation of goods and confirmation of duty along with equivalent of penalty. 2. The facts of this case are that the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellant and found some chits in respect of the clearances of the goods, which has been allegedly admitted by the appellant and on account of the same, the actual duty was worked out to Rs.2,90,518/- and again on re-visit, they were also found some finished goods, which were yet to be entered in the stock register. The same were confiscated against a redemption fine of Rs.3,75,000/-. On an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the same was confirmed. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Nauratanmal Bachhawat, Excise and Taxation Manager of the appellant appeared before me and submitted that as per provisions of the Section 11AC, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant as there was no ...
M/S Spicer India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The short issue involve in this case is as to whether the interest is payable on delayed payment or not. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants cleared their product to their sister unit and while calculating the assessable value they did not adopt the CAS-4 formula. Later on as and when they came to know about the CAS4, they paid the differential duty, but on said differential duty, the Revenue demanded the interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/-. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they were not known the assessable value at the time of clearance of the goods to their sister unit, so they could not paid the duty at the time of clearance of the goods. Moreover, it is a case of revenue neutrality and in that a situation, the appellants are not liable to pay interest. He further submitted that in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC), the goods were cleared to the c...
Ntrance Customer Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pu ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is against the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellants on the ground that Registration No. on the invoices has not been mentioned and it is also mentioned that in some of export of output service and invoice claimant’s name is also not mentioned and further services relating to the following Input services are not legible input service for taking the Cenvat credit:- (a) Transport charges (b) Housekeeping charges (c) Business Auxiliary Services (d) Telecommunication services (e) Management, maintenance or repair services (f) Cafetaria and Food Subsidiary (g) Chartered Accountant Services (h) Security Services (i) Courier Services (j) Cleaning Services (k) Lease Line charges (l) Internet cost (m) Guest House Expenses (n) Cable services (o) Prepaid Link Lead charges 2. The ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant brought to my knowledge that some of the invoices wherein the discrepancy found by the adjudicating authority has bee...
M/S Premier Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants are engaged in providing the Business Auxiliary service to M/s Hutch Ltd. Prior to 31.12.2006, they were getting commission from M/s Hutch Ltd. and were paying service tax on such commission. From 1.1.2007, the company changed its policy and the appellants were not getting commission else they were performing the sales activities. The appellant’s accountant as a matter of routine practice paid the service tax and submitted the ST-3 returns for the period from October 06 to March, 08. The appellants filed refund claim, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner applying the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC). Aggrieved from the same the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected their appeal. Aggrieved from the same, the appellants are before me. 2. The issue involved in this case is whe...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 1 Vs. M/S. Vickers System Interna ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue filed this appeal against setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC on the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the manufacturer of excisable goods. During scrutiny of documents by the audit party, it was observed that the respondents were cleared pattern and tools to their supplier without payment of duty, during the period 2000 to 2004 involving duty of Rs.1,68,345/-. A show cause notice was issued to confirm the demand and interest thereon and a penalty under Section 11AC was also proposed. The respondents paid the duty demand and interest immediately on pointing out by the department but the adjudicating authority confirmed penalty also on the appellants holding that - ‘Assessee’s contention that they had no intention to evade the duty but it happened only on account of non awareness of provision to their concerned person is not acceptable as they are under Excise registration since long and are also one of t...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. Vs. M/S. Mahav ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The revenue has filed this appeal wherein the penalty was reduced to Rs.10,000/- only against the respondent. 2. The learned JDR submitted that it is a case of clandestine removal of goods and the same has been admitted by the respondent and they have admitted the duty liability and paid the same along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. He further submitted that following the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). The respondents are liable to pay the penalty to the equivalent amount of duty, as the respondent has admitted their guilt of clandestine removal of their goods, the impugned order be set aside and equivalent amount of penalty be imposed on the respondent. 3. The respondent did not appear but they filed the written submission which has been taken on record. 4. After considering the submissions made by both the parties. I find that it...
M/S. Vikram International and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Exci ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) These appeals are filed by the appellants against the confirmation of penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on M/s. Vikram International (Partnership firm) and M/s. Sheetal Exports (proprietorship), the penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were imposed on the ground that these merchant- exporters abetted the certain offence found to have been committed by one M/s. Evergreen Fashions. The said M/s. Evergreen Fashions issued invoices and ARE1’s/ARE2’s, under Rule 11and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without any removal of goods from their factory, so as to facilitate collection of rebate under Rule 18 fraudulently. These documents were countersigned by the appellants who admitted the same in their statements that they have done as above at the instance of one Mr. Mukesh Khatri, a textile broker in Surat, who brokered transactions between them and ...
Dnyaneshwar @ Dnyani S/O Domaji Thakare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
P.D. Kode, J.1. All these appeals throwing challenge to Judgment and Order of conviction dated 26.3.2004 passed by learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 420/2002 are disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants in aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 227/2004, Criminal Appeal No. 236/2004, Criminal Appeal No. 257/2004 were original accused Nos. 4,1 and 5 respectively while appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 283/2004 were original accused Nos. 2 and 3 in said sessions case. They are accordingly referred hereinafter for the sake of convenience as per their status before the trial Court.2. By said judgment all five accused facing trial were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 of IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand) each and was further ordered to undergo R.I. for 6 months in default of payment of fine. Each of them was also ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »